Sometimes I wonder why cattle ranchers have their heads up their --tts. Bison are larger than cattle, do not need shelter in winter, do not need special diets (they will eat the poorest grass), are immune to cattle diseases, and produce more meat. They breed on their own and can be slaughtered using existing (cattle) methods and facilities. Their meat sells for much more than that of cattle.

So why are we not doing this? Why are not the ranchers just outside of Yellowstone not raising bison instead of cattle? If they would, we wouldn't have to listen to their whinning about disease or wolves. Why are not stud animals taken for the Candian Woodland Bison (an even larger breed which is also at home in forests and can winter over, outside in latitudes and climates such as Calgary or Winnepeg)?

If bison were raised instead of cattle, whole sections of the Great Plains could be allowed to revert to native grass and parkland which would greatly cut down on erosion. This type of grass regenerates rapidly after fire so that even fire, such as just occurred in Texas and Oklahoma, would be less of a problem. There simply is no downside to this idea.

Indeed, buffalo burgers are great, we have them every now and then. I also agree with your statements on buffalo ranching. I wonder if the cost or availabilty of breeding stock is keeping interest down, or what other factors would discourage ranchers? I would say that the market is there.

If a farmer is already set up for cattle, and has all the bugs worked out, why would he bother switching to bison? All existing fences would have to be replaced, and the corrals would need to be strengthened, among other things. It's an unnecessary risk. And cattle are docile and predictable, but how do you handle bison? They are still wild animals.
I suppose new ranchers in the industry--who are starting a farm from scratch--might be willing to build their farm for bison instead of cattle, but then there aren't many people getting into farming these days. I'll bet most people getting started in the beef industry are doing it strictly for the money; that means running a high intensity feedlot, something that is better suited to cattle than bison. I suspect bison will always remain a niche market.

If a farmer is already set up for cattle, and has all the bugs worked out, why would he bother switching to bison? All existing fences would have to be replaced, and the corrals would need to be strengthened, among other things. It's an unnecessary risk. And cattle are docile and predictable, but how do you handle bison? They are still wild animals.
I suppose new ranchers in the industry--who are starting a farm from scratch--might be willing to build their farm for bison instead of cattle, but then there aren't many people getting into farming these days. I'll bet most people getting started in the beef industry are doing it strictly for the money; that means running a high intensity feedlot, something that is better suited to cattle than bison. I suspect bison will always remain a niche market.

OK MisterFixIt, please don't get the idea I am going off on you. This is one of my flash points (bison). Where I live, within a National Forest in California, cattle are grazed and allowed to roam free. Actually this is not bad. Why?

Living in a National Forest, the Bureau of Land Managment, US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, etc., give us two options: controlled burns or logging. These are the two options other than putting out forest fires which is now too expensive and politically incorrect. Controlled burns are not controlled and frequently burn out residents or weaken trees so that epidemics of pests destroy hundreds of square miles of forest as happened recently in Sequoia National Park. Logging benifits logging interests and they really want to clear cut inspite of all they say.

But how did forests operate before the White Man? Simple, the Indians burned them down each fall to herd game. No forest in the Western USA ever reached climax status because of the Nobel Savage.

But how did forests operate before the Indians. Well, in the Pleistocene and the Mesozoic, large plant eating animals kept the forest naturally in balance. Regarding the Pleistocene, these were mastadons, bison, elk, deer, horses, sloths, and in some cases camels. They are gone today, the Indians are gone and we have no new checks and balances other than (Un)controlled burns and logging.

What is the answer? The answer is to reintroduce native animals which would restore balance to the forest. One of these is the bison and it would directly replace cattle on the open range. Little or no modifications would be necessary at all. The animals could even be harvested while still in the forest if this turned out best. Why not do us all a favor and do the right thing?

If a farmer is already set up for cattle, and has all the bugs worked out, why would he bother switching to bison? All existing fences would have to be replaced, and the corrals would need to be strengthened, among other things. It's an unnecessary risk. And cattle are docile and predictable, but how do you handle bison? They are still wild animals.
I suppose new ranchers in the industry--who are starting a farm from scratch--might be willing to build their farm for bison instead of cattle, but then there aren't many people getting into farming these days. I'll bet most people getting started in the beef industry are doing it strictly for the money; that means running a high intensity feedlot, something that is better suited to cattle than bison. I suspect bison will always remain a niche market.

You make good sense and raise good points. There is a guy that raises elk not too far from me and he has huge, tall fences and I've heard about how dangerous bull elk can be. My problem was in thinking that bison are domestic animals- obviously they are not! You may be right that it will always be a niche market.